Criminal Case Summaries:
·
People
v Case
(KA 12-01342) – 4AD reverses D’s conviction because the lower court erred in
admitting 7 summary exhibits. D was not provided with the data underlying the
exhibits before trial, and the exhibits were not based on information that was
already in evidence. As a result, they were improperly admitted under the
voluminous writings exception to the best evidence rule. D was therefore denied
a full and fair opportunity to contest the accuracy of the summary exhibits.
(4AD reviewed this error in the interest of justice.) Furthermore, 4AD finds that
D was denied the effective assistance of counsel because defense counsel failed
to review the summary exhibits and object to their admission into evidence.
This error was so serious that D was denied a fair trial.
·
People v Heatley (KA 12-02392) – This appeal from a second
degree murder conviction produced three separate opinions from the 4AD panel.
The majority, concurrence, and dissent all agreed that D did not commit second
degree murder, however, they disagreed as to why he did not, and what the
proper remedy should be in this case. D argued that his intent to kill was not
proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and his conviction was therefore against the
weight of the evidence. (Trial counsel failed to preserve the argument that the
evidence was legally insufficient).
The majority agreed that the verdict was against
the weight of the evidence, because there was legally insufficient evidence of
intent to kill. The majority notes that it is well established that as part of
an appellate court’s weight of the evidence review, the court must determine
whether all of the elements of the crime have been proven beyond a reasonable
doubt. The majority next concludes that even though the verdict is against the
weight of the evidence, the proper remedy is a reduction of the murder
conviction to manslaughter under CPL 470.15 (2) (a), not dismissal of the
indictment. Although dismissal is the proper
remedy where a verdict is found to be against the weight of the evidence, here,
according to the majority, the verdict is technically based on legally
insufficient evidence. “Where as here, . . . there is no separate contention
that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence, but
instead the analysis of the legal sufficiency of the evidence is conducted
solely in the context of a contention that the verdict is against the weight of
the evidence (see Danielson, 9 NY3d
at 349), we conclude that dismissal of the indictment is not the appropriate remedy.” The majority thus modified the murder
in the second degree conviction to manslaughter in the first degree.
Smith, J., concurred. The concurrence disagreed
that the conviction was based on legally insufficient evidence, and instead
found that there was legally sufficient evidence of D’s intent to kill, but
that the verdict was nevertheless against the weight of the evidence. The
concurrence further concluded that a conviction can be modified where a verdict
is found against the weight of the evidence. According to the dissent, CPL
470.20 and 470.15 give an appellate court broad discretion in fashioning an
appropriate remedial measure, and permit the reduction of a count that was
against the weight of the evidence to a lesser included offense.
Fahey, J., dissented. The dissent agrees with
the majority that there was insufficient evidence to establish D’s intent to
kill. But the dissent disagrees that the conviction could be modified. Instead,
in the dissent’s view, the Court was required to dismiss the indictment. D
asked only for weight of the evidence review, and the Court was thus limited to
that type of review. Given the conceptual distinctions between sufficiency and
weight review, “I cannot conclude that a court, when asked to determine whether
a verdict is justified on the facts (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 493;
see also CPL 470.15 [5]), may, on the
law, reduce a verdict it deems to be
against the weight of the evidence to one convicting a defendant of a lesser
included offense.”
·
People v Ingram (KA 13-00437) – 4AD affirms the lower court’s
order, which granted D’s motion to suppress physical evidence and oral
statements. An officer received a tip from an arrestee that there were guns
located behind a particular house in Buffalo, which was located in a high-crime
area. Officers proceeded to the area and noticed D and another man in front of
one of the neighboring houses. The other man was known to one of the officers
as a victim of a recent shooting. As the officers stopped to talk to the other
man, D began to quickly walk away. The second officer exited his car and asked
D his name. D then began to reach for his jacket pocket and tried to pull
something out. The officer drew his gun and D began to run. Police eventually
apprehended him and found a gun. 4AD finds that the tip and D’s behavior did
not give rise to a reasonable suspicion and police could not lawfully chase and
apprehend D. 4AD notes that the tip was not reliable, because the informant did
not specify who placed the guns behind the house, or where exactly they were
located. In any case, there was also no indication that D had any connection to
the house. Finally, when D first reached for his pockets, police did not see a
bulge or any tell-tale sign of a weapon.
Scudder, P.J., and Peradotto, J., dissented. The
dissent primarily contends that the lower court failed to afford sufficient
weight to the fact that D reached for his jacket pocket and “vigorously” tried
to pull something out, and that the police officer testified that in his
experience, such behavior was normally indicative of the fact that a weapon was
present. In the dissent’s view, this behavior plus D’s flight gave rise to a
reasonable suspicion.
·
People v Laboy (KA 11-02136) – 4AD reverses D’s conviction of
assault in the second degree, among other things, because it was based on
legally insufficient evidence. A police officer entered D’s home with the
consent of his wife, and attempted to arrest him for harassment in the second
degree, a violation. The alleged violation occurred earlier that day, but the
officer did not have an arrest warrant. D resisted and caused injury to the
officer. 4AD finds that the arrest was unlawful, because the officer did not
have reasonable cause to believe that D had committed an offense in her
presence. Thus, under Penal Law section 140.10 (1) (a), the officer could not
arrest D without a warrant.
·
People v Perry (KA 13-00563) – 4AD reverses the lower court’s
order, which dismissed the indictment against D on the ground that the statute
of limitations had run. D was charged with grand larceny in the second degree
for allegedly stealing New York State retirement benefits that he was not
entitled to. He applied for the benefits in 2004 or 2005, and received payments
from February 2005 to February 2012. 4AD concludes that the grand larceny was a
continuing offense that did not terminate until February 2012, which was when
the statute of limitations began running. The prosecution began in March 2012
and was thus timely.
·
People v Sanders (KA 09-02165) – 4AD finds that D’s conviction
for criminally negligent homicide was not against the weight of the evidence. D
punched the victim with a closed fist in the back of the head, ultimately
causing his death. 4AD notes that while death resulting from a single punch may
be unusual, it has repeatedly held that a single punch can support a criminally
negligent homicide conviction. Here, D rushed the victim and without warning
delivered a “powerful blow” to his head. Witnesses described the blow as “a
very loud crack, like a wooden bat hitting a ball.” In addition, the Medical
Examiner described the victim’s injuries as similar to those suffered by
individuals involved in high-speed car crashes.
Family Law Case Summaries:
·
Matter
of Bly v Hoffman (CAF 13-00240) – In this custody matter, 4AD reverses
the lower court’s order, which dismissed the mother’s modification petition
without a hearing. 4AD finds that the mother was deprived of her right to
counsel when the Family Court “sua sponte dismissed her petition in the absence
of her attorney”. Reversal was required without regard to the merits of the
mother’s case.
No comments:
Post a Comment